The Way It Is Now: In Citizens United v. Federal
Elections Commission, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled
that the free speech provision of the First Amendment
protects corporations as well as human beings. It
ruled that corporations have a First Amendment right
to spend money for political purposes, invalidating a
federal law that limited corporate political spending.
The Proposal: Proposition G would make it City policy
that corporations should not have the same constitutional
rights as human beings and should be subject
to political spending limits.
Specifically, Proposition G declares that:

Spending corporate money is not constitutionally
protected speech.

Limits on political spending provide an opportunity
for all citizens--regardless of wealth--to have
their political views heard.

The People of San Francisco urge their
Representatives and Senators in Congress
to propose a constitutional amendment to
reverse the Citizens United v. Federal Elections
Commission decision.

City Controller Ben Rosenfield has issued the following
statement on the fiscal impact of Proposition G:
Should the proposed declaration of policy be approved by the voters, in my opinion, it would not affect the cost of government.

This election is archived. Any links to sources outside of Smart Voter may no longer be active. No further links will be added to this page.

Links to sources outside of Smart Voter are provided for information only and do not imply endorsement.

Vote for Prop G: Policy Opposing Corporate Personhood
San Francisco has strong campaign finance laws to limit
the excessive influence of corporations and interest
groups on public officials and election outcomes. But our
elections are threatened by the recent Citizens United vs.
the FEC Supreme Court decision which ruled that corporations
have the same constitutional rights as human beings
and spending an unlimited amount of money on politics is
the same as free speech protected by the Bill of Rights.
Although corporations can make important contributions
to our society using advantages that the government has
granted them, corporations are NOT people. The
Constitution was written to protect the rights of human
beings, not corporations. Granting multinational corporations
artificial rights above and beyond the individual
rights of their shareholders undermines the rights of
people.
Spending huge amounts of money to buy election results
is not free speech -- it is bought speech. We must set limits
on campaign spending and contributions to Super
PACs by billionaires, which drown out the voices of ordinary
voters.
We can influence the Supreme Court's reading of our
Constitution by passing an amendment that authorizes
limits on campaign contributions and spending and ends
artificial rights for corporations.
Proposition G affirms that San Franciscans oppose
Corporate Personhood and unlimited corporate spending
in elections and sends a message to our representatives
in Congress that the reversal of the Supreme Court's ruling
is a priority.
Unlimited corporate spending has no place in elections,
and our democracy should never be for sale. That's why
organizations like Common Cause, businesses like
CREDO Mobile, and all 11 members of the San Francisco
Board of Supervisors urge you to vote YES on G.
John Avalos
David Campos
David Chiu
Carmen Chu
Malia Cohen
Sean Elsbernd
Mark Farrell
Jane Kim
Eric Mar
Christina Olague
Scott Wiener

Corporate reforms are badly needed. But Proposition G
takes aim at the wrong target! As economist Michael
Suede has written:
"The evil that comes from corporate personhood does
not stem from the fact that groups of people can voluntarily
voice their views. The evil comes from treating corporate
groups as persons when it comes to liability laws.
Holding a corporate entity liable for damages, rather than
the corporate owners (or shareholders) is why corporations
are so destructive to the market..."
"Corporate liability laws allow corporations (groups of
people) to do bad things, while allowing the owners of
that corporation to avoid personal responsibility for their
actions. In fact, the primary purpose of incorporating is to
avoid liability problems (hence the title `limited liability
corporation')!"
Unfortunately, we doubt the politicians behind Proposition
G have the courage to tackle fundamental corporate
reform by going after limited liability. Among other things,
that might start raising questions about the privilege of
limited liability they themselves enjoy as government officials
under the doctrine of "sovereign immunity."
In the meantime, their hypocritical grandstanding on the
issue of money in politics + how many of them refuse
corporate/union donations? + threatens free speech and
contradicts a previous policy declaration, Proposition O,
approved by San Franciscans in 1991. That measure
passed by 73% of voters affirmed our city's "unqualified
support for the First Amendment" and "rejection of every
form of censorship."
Please vote NO on Proposition G.
Libertarian Party of San Francisco
Starchild

If you write essays supporting your favorite candidates
and spend your money to publish them, everyone agrees
this is protected as free speech under the First
Amendment.
But what if you and a group of friends who like your
essays get together and form a media company called
San Francisco Friends Press Inc. (SFFP) for the purpose of
publishing them?
We believe the right to free speech still applies, and that
you and your friends acting as SFFP should be able to
legally spend the group's money to publish your essays.
The U.S. Supreme Court in its Citizens United decision
agreed that people's free speech rights do not disappear
when they act together cooperatively, whether as a corporation,
a union, or a nonprofit like the Citizens United itself.
Proponents of Proposition G say no. They claim that as a
corporation, SFFP should face restrictions on publishing
your essays. Yet if SFFP were a union or a nonprofit, no
problem -- Prop. G says nothing about restricting the
legal rights of those groups to promote political views,
even though they aren't "persons" any more than corporations
are.
Proposition G claims the Constitution and Bill of Rights
are "intended to protect the rights of individual human
beings" and that "corporations are specifically not mentioned
in the Constitution as deserving of rights entitled
to human beings."
By this logic, government agencies would have the
power to search your company's offices without a warrant
or reasonable cause, or quarter troops there without
the company's consent, since the Constitutional rights
guaranteed under the Third and Fourth amendments
don't apply to corporations!
Proposition G is inconsistent and dangerously flawed. It
threatens the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of
the press, and other freedoms we take for granted.
Please vote NO!
Libertarian Party of San Francisco
Starchild

We disagree with the Supreme Court's decision in
Citizens Untied vs. FEC. We support Measure G so voters
can tell Congress to reverse this decision because corporations
are not people+only people are people. And
money is not speech--it's property.
"A group of friends" is not a corporation that is granted
extra privileges to limit its shareholder's liability. It is
wrong for a CEO to use these extra privileges to spend
the group's money without express permission from their
stockholders to make political statements. People's rights
do not disappear when they form a corporation, but the
corporation does not gain its own separate rights above
and beyond the people that comprise it.
Our democracy provides for "a group of friends" to make
campaign contributions through Political Action
Committees (PAC's). Unions and non-profits do use PAC's
to express their political views. Let the corporations form
their own PAC's and be held accountable to their stockholders.
Citizens United provides for unlimited political speech
with NO disclosure. Voters have a right to know who is
funding the candidates and issues. We demand disclosure
and limits on campaign contributions, and a democracy
where voter's political speech is not drowned out by
the flood of secret money that Citizens United made possible.
Measure G does not threaten the Freedom of the Press.
Individuals can still come together to form media outlets
that people can read if they want or spend limited
amounts of money on ads.
Vote YES on Measure G.
CA Common Cause